by Deanna Spingola
2 July 2005
What an absolutely opportune time, considering the recent Supreme Court decisions, for Sandra Day O’Connor, a swing voter, to announce her retirement on 1 July 2005 in a letter to George W. Bush. She is stepping down as the first woman to ever serve as an associate justice on the nine member Supreme Court. This creates the first vacancy in the Supreme Court in 11 years. Bush immediately issued a statement from the White House Rose Garden regarding her unexpected but not surprising announcement, given her husband, John, is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. In her letter, she cited her age, 75 and also indicated that she wanted to spend more time with her family.
Bush indicated that O’Connor was "a discerning and conscientious judge and a public servant of complete integrity". He alleged that he intended to recommend a replacement who would "faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country." Bush stated that the nation "deserves a dignified process of confirmation, characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote." Bush intends to consult with the Senate about his recommendations. However, according to the Constitution, the President has the right to make nominations without the input of others. Then the Senate must confirm or deny the nominee.
No sooner was the announcement made but what dozens of pro choice "liberals" and dozens of pro life "conservatives" initiated the battle against each other. Both factions are ready for the war with online petitions which are to be delivered to Bush and the Senate. Other groups ask that we call the White House. Some groups ask that we stand with the President on this issue. BUT, where exactly does HE stand? All the usual suspects are present among both camps. And who can tell how long the war will rage – perhaps until October, although Bush promises a prompt decision. But just think how much diversion the nasty, sniveling political battles will provide the media. Imagine all of the interviews on the talk shows. All the pundits on both sides will have plenty of petty things to discuss. But there are no guarantees. It does not matter what camp the appointee comes from – Sandra Day O’Connor was pro life before she was sworn in. Then she supported abortion after the oath.
The Executive Director Anthony D. Romero of the
ACLU issued a statement:
How timely for this important United States
holiday that Bush now has the opportunity to play the role of the
conservative, family values, Bible toting Christian and honor his campaign
promises. He said the following on 8 October 2004:
However, if we truly think that the new appointee will make a drastic difference then we are either naïve or living in a cave on an island somewhere. Considering the current make up of the court, political party lacks significance. Whether a nominee wears a liberal, moderate, or conservative mask is completely insignificant in this life time appointment where there is no accountability to the citizens of this country. Nor is there accountability to our Congress and Administration who consistently fail to reign in the Court, according to Constitutional checks and balances.
Prior to being sworn in, a nominee could be a constitutional, conservative Dr. Jekyll and within moments turn into a constitution bashing Mr. Hyde. It doesn’t matter whether one is republikan or demokrat. It does not matter who they are appointed by. It does not matter that only one of the current justices was on the bench when Roe vs. Wade was decided. And it doesn’t matter that he was republikan. The fact is Roe vs. Wade could have and should have been reversed prior to the loss of more than 44 million human beings which has also cost the United States the loss of her humanity. The Supreme Court continues to legislate from the bench instead of upholding the constitutional values they swore to abide by. They continue to step on the legislative toes of the state and assume and consume states rights.
Associate Justices, Political Party, Appointed by, Sworn in:
Sandra Day O’Connor (R) President Ronald Reagan, September 25, 1981
Anthony Kennedy (R) President Ronald Reagan, February 18, 1988
David H. Souter (R) President George H. W. Bush, October 9, 1990
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D - CFR) President Bill Clinton, August 10, 1993
Stephen G. Breyer (D - CFR) President Bill Clinton, August 3, 1994
John Paul Stevens (R) President Gerald Ford, December 19, 1975
William H. Rehnquist (R) Presidents Richard Nixon January 7, 1972 & Ronald Reagan September 26, 1986
Antonin Scalia (R) President Ronald Reagan, September 26, 1986
Clarence Thomas (R) President George H. W. Bush, October 23, 1991
One political appointment, even to the not so Supreme Court, the alleged highest court in the land, is not going to affect the soldiers who are being killed in the war in Iraq. It will not affect the congressional redistribution of our wealth to foreign countries through faux trade agreements. It will not affect the abortion "rights" of thousands of females who have been conned into thinking that a baby is just fetal tissue. It will not play any part in the reform of the United Nations. It will take more than a few political Band-Aids to fix that one world promoting, sovereignty destroying entity. We should just get out of the U.N. It is the real evil empire. Reforming the United Nations would be like trying to reform NAMBLA, which has a comparable deceptive basis for existence.
The new appointee will not fix the situation at the southern borders with its influx of illegal aliens. It will not bring business back to the United States or return jobs to those who have lost their jobs through outsourcing. It will probably not affect the efforts of congressmen who write bills whose passage would deprive us of even more of the Unalienable God given rights protected by the Constitution. And it will not affect our God given right to pray in public or see the Ten Commandments displayed in our communities. We began to lose our religious freedoms in 1947, about the time the United Nations was hatched – what a coincidence!
The Supreme Court took a partial phrase out of context from a 1802 letter written by Thomas Jefferson. They used that partial phrase to play creative games with the First Amendment. The complete phrase was that the First Amendment had built "a wall of separation between church and state." This letter was a response to a group of Baptists who were concerned that the government would attempt to establish a specific religion. The Baptists were concerned that the government, because they mentioned religion in the First Amendment would try to regulate it. They recognized that their freedom to worship was a gift from God, not bestowed by the government. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the prohibiting of the free exercise thereof." The phrase "separation between church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
The voters naively wish with all their hearts that a miracle might actually occur with the appointment of a truly constitutional conservative who will make a difference. We all dream of a better time, especially those who are older and remember a time when one could turn on the television and not be offended by sexually explicit prime time garbage. We won’t hear about God very often on television though. But how does this country make a comeback? What will it take to return us to a country that we may all be proud of? But this noble objective will take more than a wish. It will take an overhaul of congress. It will take courageous people willing to stand up for what they believe and run for a political position and then retain their principles and integrity after they are sworn into office.
In the next weeks, or months, the captivated voters will watch the tennis-match-like political diversion which will give all the anchors something to talk about on the evening news. Meanwhile the politicians will use the media driven diversion to continue doing the things that the anchors will never discuss on the evening news.
© Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved
Deanna Spingola's articles
are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the
person or organization must not
charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and
full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.